Save Article

Criticize President Obama's Policy, but Not His Motives

Updated Feb. 17, 2011 12:01 a.m. ET

Michael Medved offers sound advice to conservatives to stop accusing President Obama of deliberately weakening America ("Obama Isn't Trying to 'Weaken America'," op-ed, Feb. 14). Most conservatives believe that Mr. Obama is attempting to fundamentally transform America and that, in the process, his policies have weakened the American economy and its standing in the world. But benefit of the doubt says that these are side-effects, not objectives. Although conservatives ought to avoid the malicious intent charge, it is worth remembering that the left used that charge quite effectively to attack President George W. Bush.

President Obama's primary domestic priority, as stated repeatedly during his campaign, is to make America a fairer country with less income disparity and more help for the disadvantaged—not necessarily a European welfare state, but a major step in that direction. His primary foreign policy is to make America more of a team player, rather than taking action and demanding that others follow suit. Shortly after his inauguration, President Obama told an audience in France that, "In America there is a failure to appreciate Europe's leading role in the world."

President Obama is not an economist, businessman or foreign policy expert. He was a lawyer, community organizer and politician. Chances are that he sincerely believes that his vision of a socially just America will produce a better, if not stronger, nation; and, if the economy suffers a little in the process, that is a price worth paying. There's no malicious intent there, just a community organizer's view of government's role in the private sector. Conservatives can show that Mr. Obama's policies are hurting the country without questioning his intent or impugning his integrity.

Chris Morgan

Charleston, S.C.

The authentic path to success is the path of ideas, based on facts, evidence and historical experience, not the path of vitriolic attacks, even when one feels they have just cause. President Ronald Reagan was passionate about ideas but gracious to his opponents. Looking into the hearts of individuals is a dangerous business. Better to do battle with ideas and give one's adversary the benefit of the doubt when it comes to motives.

Thomas M. Doran

Plymouth, Mich.

What Rush Limbaugh and many other observers understand is that while Mr. Obama might not be methodically laboring to destroy America, he is a pessimist. Mr. Obama views the nation as flawed and believes he is here to fix what is "wrong." To my knowledge, he is the first to approach the presidency from this negative mindset. You can almost see his head shaking back and forth "no" when any discussion of our role on the world stage is under debate. And he has thus surrounded himself, consciously or subconsciously, with like-minded people who view our nation as if walking through a house of mirrors where our flaws are exaggerated to garish proportion. It Is no surprise that his programs and views are distorted and confusing— they are based on images that do not exist.

Where President Reagan envisioned a shining city on a hill and our best and brightest days ahead, Mr. Obama sees a bully, a blowhard, a guy in a Hummer cutting off a school teacher in a Chevy Volt. And, most importantly, like Ronald Reagan, he cannot help himself.

Craig A. Ellis

Applegate, Mich.

The theory that President Obama is purposely trying to run the country into the ground in order to promote Islam and/or vindicate racial discrimination is perhaps the most laughable yet. At some point, even the most blindly rabid partisan must admit to himself that this theory is ludicrous. Mr. Obama can only hope that this is the type of intellectual challenge he will face in 2012.

Chris Visser

Falls Church, Va.

Agile disputant though he is, Michael Medved does not convince. One need not analyze Mr. Obama's motives, nor resent his evident intentions. One need consider only the actions he has taken and then observe and consider their almost uniformly dismal results. Even constitutionality is already beside the point.